The aim of this paper is to rescue the reputation of the much-maligned seventeenth-century English lexicographer Edward Phillips. He has been accused of plagiarizing in his dictionary called New world of English words (1658) from an earlier dictionary, Thomas Blount’s Glossographia (1656), and he has been accused of claiming misleadingly that his dictionary was enriched by the contributions of consultants. Both accusations were originally made by Blount. Examining them both – which requires the use of techniques from the history of the book and the social history of science and technology – leads to the conclusion that neither accusation is true, and that Phillips actually made multiple original contributions to the development of the English lexicographical tradition, particularly in the use of consultants and the handling of technological vocabulary.

Now that printed books are being replaced by online materials, it is especially important to agree on the format of the etymological dictionary of the future. It seems expedient to discontinue the publication of dictionaries that contain minimal or no new information, for the public already has more than enough of them. The profession needs exhaustive (ideally annotated) bibliographies of everything ever published on the origin of every word in the language under study. Of great use can be thematic etymological dictionaries, such as dictionaries of presumably native words in a given language, of borrowings, of slang, of regional words, etc. Only the languages that have never been the object of sustained etymological research require general dictionaries of the type once produced by Skeat, Kluge, and their peers.

The present paper is a contribution to the history of Polish-English and English-Polish lexicography. It aims to throw some light on two bilingual dictionaries compiled by Ludwik Krzyżanowski, which have so far been shrouded in mystery. Fonds no. 49 deposited in the New York archives of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America (PIASA) provide archives in New York provide valuable data on the author and his scholarly activity, as well as a tiny part of a dictionary typescript that allows for a preliminary assessment of the lexicographic endeavour.

Bernardo da Parigi’s Vocabolario Italiano-Turchesco (1665) is a huge three-volume dictionary that unfortunately has been virtually ignored by studies on Ottoman lexicography so far. This paper focuses on a number of words recorded by Bernardo which are particularly interesting from a historical-lexicographical viewpoint, such as European loanwords not attested elsewhere or presenting noteworthy features and Anatolian Turkish words missing in Meninski (1680).

This author’s aim is to show that the general notion “dogmatic dictionary” actually comprises various scholarly etymological dictionaries that should be distinguished from each other due to their different informational potential.

This paper investigates four bilingual English – Upper Sorbian / Upper Sorbian – English dictionaries regarding the presence of Anglicisms therein. The paper describes the place of Anglicisms in the macrostructure of the lexicons as well their treatment within entries either as headwords or counterparts. The paper enumerates their numerical presence as well as the types of borrowings, and the other processes responsible for enriching the lexis of Upper Sorbian with English lexical elements as revealed in the dictionaries. The paper discusses the information regarding the adaptation of English lexical items in Upper Sorbian (phonetic, graphic, morphological and semantic) that can be obtained from the lexicographic works.